Two points of detailed clarification on the report of the 30 September meeting:

Materials Section
(point (ix)
"For example, it is now possible to study biomolecules by trapping them
in nanostructures making x-ray crystallography possible."
I think this was my point and needs to be re-written a bit. What I have put
in italics is unintentionally misleading. The points are (a) that trapping of
biomolecules enables techniques complementary to X-rays to be employed (e.g.
AFM, local optical probes); (b) some people are exploring the possible development
of local X-ray sources that might allow such trapped molecules to be imaged
"individually" - UK basic technology project led by Southampton; (c)
maybe one could force crystallisation of unenthusiastic proteins to faciltate
X-ray diffraction by using a regular, nanopatterned template surface.

Electronics section
(point (i))
"Chip dimensions have been shrinking for 4 decades (100nm transistor in
production in 1988, 15nm transistor today)"
I wasn't at this but statement is misleading (and hardly a detail) too. Production
devices NOW employ approx. 100 nm gate lengths. Proof of principle may have
been demonstrated at 15nm but not necessarily in an economically viable way
(probably uses serial e-beam lithography).

Hopefully you can feed these points in.

Professor R.E. Palmer
Nanoscale Physics Research Laboratory
School of Physics and Astronomy
The University of Birmingham